29 Aug 2014

No Naturally Occurring Fluoride Is Added To Drinking Water – See What’s Really Added



hazmat
The resistance against water fluoridation might be a different story if the naturally occurring element of fluoride was added to our water. Fluoride is found in all natural waters, levels can be very high in groundwater, depending on a number of factors, such as the types of rocks and minerals of that region. Drinking water is the largest fluoride source.
Our tap water, on the other hand, is littered with hydrofluorosilicic Acid, a toxic industrial waste by-product that governments have been adding to our drinking water for over sixty years. Again, we’re not talking about the natural element of fluoride here, we are talking about industrial toxic waste.

Fluorosilicic acid regulation standard for use in water fluoridation is 98% purity. That's allows 2% arsenic and mercury from the  hundreds of tonnes going into drinking water.

28 Aug 2014

USA - Pediatricians Want Parents to Use THIS Deadly Chemical on Infants

The American Academy of Pediatricians (AAP) suggested that fluoride-ridden toothpaste should be used on infants as soon as teeth begin to appear; as well as using “a smear (the size of a grain of rice) of toothpaste” with fluoride on children up to 3 years old.
The report concludes that “Fluoride has both risks and benefits for children, and pediatricians must be aware of these to promote their patients’ oral health.”
Orig.src.Susanne.Posel.Daily.News- fluoride.pediatricians.babies.infants.toddlers.neurotoxin_occupycorporatismSeveral months ago, the American Dental Association (ADA) is recommending that children use toothpaste with fluoride as soon as their first tooth appears to “help prevent cavities”.
This statement claims to combat fluorosis and discoloration of teeth by increasing the use of fluoride.
The ADA said that parents should smear the fluoride-laced toothpaste directly onto the gums of their children ages 3 and older as one suggestion in a new set of guidelines that are designed to ensure more children are exposed to fluoride at a younger age.
Earlier this year, researchers from Harvard University (HU) the Mount Sinai Hospital (MSH) confirmedprevious disclosures that state fluoride is a neurotoxin.
Philip Landrigan, dean for global health and chair of preventative medicine for Icahn School of Medicine (ISM) at MSH, and his colleague Philippe Grandjean, adjunct professor of environmental health at the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) concur that fluoride, among other neurotoxins are causational to the onset of neurodevelopmental disabilities (NDDs).
The researchers identify a few NDDs as:
• Autism
• Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)
• Dyslexia
Nearly a decade ago, Lita Lee, chemist and enzyme therapist published a paper entitled, “Fluoride: A Modern Toxic Waste” which chastised the use of sodium fluoride in the public water supply, food and beverages for the average American to consume.
Lee wrote: “Yiamouyiannis documents research showing that fluoride increases the tumor growth rate by 25% at only 1 ppm, produces melanotic tumors, transforms normal cells into cancer cells and increases the carcinogenesis of other chemicals. For the original references to these studies, refer to Yiamouyiannis’ pamphlet, Lifesavers Guide to Fluoridation.”

27 Aug 2014

Fluoridealert








AUGUST 27, 2014

This is the first of a two-part series on the whitewash reviews which are produced by pro-fluoridation governments in an attempt to defuse the growing efforts to end this foolish practice worldwide. Part 1 is on the whitewash review produced by the NZ government a few days ago.
Hand picked governmental review panels
In the book The Case Against Fluoride (Chelsea Green, 2010) my co-authors and I tried to explain how and why the practice of water fluoridation has been pursued so vigorously for so many years, despite the science that indicates that it is neither effective nor safe. The “how’s” are much easier to explain (see chapters 22-25) than the “why’s” (see chapter 26). One of the how’s is the self-serving governmental reviews which we describe in chapter 24. We lead of that chapter with a quote from the book Fluoride Wars (2009), which is otherwise slanted toward fluoridation. The authors, Alan Freeze and Jay Lehr, conceded one very important point about the promotion of fluoridation. They write:
The Anti-fluoride forces have always claimed that the many government-sponsored review panels set up over the years to assess the costs and benefits of fluoridation were stacked in favor of fluoridation. A review of the membership of the various panels confirms this charge. The expert committees that put together reports by the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1941, 1944 and 1954; the National Academy of Sciences in 1951, 1971, 1977 and 1993; the World Health Organization in 1958 and 1970; and the U.S. Public Health Service in 1991 are rife with the names of well-known medical and dental researchers who actively campaigned on behalf of fluoridation or whose research was held in high regard in the pro-fluoridation movement. Membership was interlocking and incestuous.
Nothing has changed. Time and time again when this practice is under political or scientific threat pro-fluoridation governments hand pick panels (usually containing a mix of government employees and scientists who are known to be pro-fluoridation) to “review” the literature and thence deliver a rubber-stamp for government policy. In chapter 24 we discuss three recent examples of this 1) The Irish Fluoridation Forum (2002); 2) Health Canada’s selection of 6 experts to review the literature in 2007 (four of which were pro-fluoridation dentists) and 3) the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council of 2007 (NHMRC, 2007).
As Mark Twain observed “history may not repeat itself but it sure does rhyme!”
The latest NZ Whitewash review
This review titled the Health Effects of Water Fluoridation: a Review of the Scientific Evidence, commissioned by the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor Sir Peter Gluckman and the Royal Society of New Zealand’s president Sir David Skegg, was released on August 22, 2014.
A press report can be viewed here: http://fluoridealert.org/news/fluoride-safe-and-effective-expert-review/
As far as the science is concerned this is a classic case of inaccurate, selective, slanted and superficial use of the literature and later I will give one very clear example to illustrate that. But first here is what Mary Byrne, who heads up FAN NZ, says about the politics of this review. In an August press release, Mary wrote:
Last week we had Dirty Politics this week we have Laundromat Science

A “review” of fluoridation published yesterday (22nd August) was chaired by committed fluoridationists Professors Peter Gluckman and David Skegg. Both of these men had already hung their hat on the fluoridation wagon.

It is obvious that this review was set up to allay the growing public concern and awareness that fluoride does cause harm rather than actually deal with science. This was PR not science, in other words, dirty science.

Last year Prof Gluckman issued an advisory stating that “the science was settled” and two weeks ago he said on Radio NZ that the Review would be looking at “what we know about the safety and efficacy of fluoride in water.” He didn’t say they would be examining the research that shows that fluoride is harmful and perhaps not even effective.

Less than two years ago, Prof Skegg claimed that there was no new evidence to require a review of fluoridation, in spite of the two most prestigious international reviews in history (The York Review 2000 and the National Research Council 2006) saying there was a dire need for better scientific information.

The NZ “expert panel” included only people who were already known to be ardently in favor of fluoridation and not one single person who is known to be opposed, or even someone neutral. It was therefore already a foregone conclusion.

Gregory Seymour who, as Head of the Otago Dental School, refused the Dental Students’ Association’s request to hear scientific evidence against fluoridation on campus by an international expert, and Murray Thomson is the Editor of the NZ Dental Journal and author of pro-fluoridation papers…

This review should be viewed against the recent background of the Health Minister of Israel banning fluoridation last week and the admission by Dr. Michael Beasley, the Deputy Director of the National Poisons Centre, that the jury is still out regarding fluoride’s safety...

The reality is that this “kangaroo review” is just a “finger in the dyke,” trying to hold back the inevitable demise of this failed policy. The weight of scientific evidence is that fluoridation is not only ineffective; it poses major health risks, as (has been) known since the 1940s.
Fluoride Free New Zealand calls for an independently chaired open public discussion to uncover the truth about fluoridation.

Political science not physical science

The following passage from the NZ review will serve to illustrate the shoddy scientific analysis they provide. In a section titled “Effects on IQ” they write:
Recently there have been a number of reports from China and other areas where fluoride levels in groundwater are naturally very high, that have claimed an association between high water fluoride levels and minimally reduced intelligence (measured as IQ) in children.
In addition to the fact that the fluoride exposures in these studies were many (up to 20) times higher than any that are experienced in New Zealand or other CWF communities, the studies also mostly failed to consider other factors that might influence IQ, including exposures to arsenic, iodine deficiency, socioeconomic status, or the nutritional status of the children. Further, the claimed shift of less than one IQ point suggests that this is likely to be a measurement or statistical artifact of no functional significance. A recently published study in New Zealand followed a group of people born in the early 1970s and measured childhood IQ at the ages of 7, 9, 11 and 13 years, and adult IQ at the age of 38 years. Early-life exposure to fluoride from a variety of sources was recorded, and adjustments were made for factors potentially influencing IQ. This extensive study revealed no evidence that exposure to water fluoridation in New Zealand affects neurological development or IQ.
We conclude that on the available evidence there is no appreciable effect on cognition arising from CWF.
It should be incredibly embarrassing for the Royal Society of New Zealand to have its name associated with such an inaccurate and biased summary of the literature on fluoride’s impact on children’s intellectual development.

1) Gluckman and Skegg claim “a shift of less than one IQ point” in the 27 studies reviewed by Choi et al (2012). In reality, the average lowering of IQ was 6.9 IQ points and that is NOT "of no functional significance.” Gluckman and Skegg’s mistake here is huge. A downward shift of 5 IQ points (or more) in a large population would more than double the number of persons who are mentally handicapped (with IQs less than 70) and more than halve the number of very bright persons or geniuses (persons with IQs over 130).

2) Gluckman and Skegg claim that, “fluoride exposures in these studies were many (up to 20) times higher than any that are experienced in New Zealand or other CWF communities.” There are several problems with this statement.

A) By using the word “exposures” they are blurring the distinction between concentration and dose. Two populations drinking water with different fluoride concentrations can overlap in the doses received by individuals. For example, high water drinkers of water at 1 ppm could get a higher dose than low-water drinkers at 4 ppm.

B) The use of the phrase “up to 20 times” higher is deceptive since only two out of the 27 studies had the “high-fluoride” village concentrations going up to 11.5 ppm.

Moreover, when harm is found toxicologists and regulators do not normally focus on the highest level but the lowest level where harm occurs. They try to identify a Lowest Observable Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) and even a No Observable Adverse Effect level (NOAEL). Thus more relevant to NZ (and other countries with water fluoridation programs in the range of 0.6 to 1.2 ppm) is the fact that 8 of the reviewed studies had concentrations in the “high-fluoride” village (where IQ was lowered) of less than 3 ppm. Thus a significant number of these studies indicate that there is no adequate margin of safety to protect all children drinking fluoridated water in NZ or other fluoridated countries.

I should add that in one study the authors sub-divided the children in the high-fluoride village into 5 groups with increasing fluoride concentrations in their well water from 0.75 to 4.3 ppm. They found that as the fluoride concentration increased a) their mean IQ of the sub-group was lowered and b) the percentage of children with an IQ less than 80 increased. The lowest level at which an IQ lowering occurred was 1.26 ppm (Xiang, et al., 2003).

C) This lack of an adequate margin of safety gets worse when one notes that Gluckman and Skegg are also ignoring other sources of fluoride, which could make it worse for NZ children. For example, rural Chinese children are less likely to use fluoridated toothpaste and a higher percentage would be breast-fed not bottle-fed. In these two respects NZ children would be getting more fluoride from these sources than the Chinese children.

3) Gluckman and Skegg claim that of the 27 studies most “failed to consider other factors that might influence IQ, including exposures to arsenic, iodine deficiency, socioeconomic status, or the nutritional status of the children.”

However, the fact that many of the studies did not control for all of these factors does not obviate the need to look for the studies that did. For example, Xiang et al. (2003 a,b) controlled for lead, iodine and more recently arsenic and his work needs to be studied very carefully not simply dismissed because of other weaker studies.

Gluckman and Skegg are also demonstrating a double standard here because the study they offer as evidence of no lowering of IQ (Broadbent et al, 2014) also failed to control for some for these same key variables. In fact, the Broadbent study is a very weak study since they have virtually no children in the control group i.e. they had virtually no children that were neither exposed to fluoridated water nor fluoride supplements.

4) Gluckman and Skegg do a very poor job of reviewing all the other voluminous evidence that fluoride is a potent neurotoxin. So while perhaps none of these individual IQ studies is conclusive, the overall consistency of the results is remarkable considering they were done by different research teams in different countries, and over a very wide geographical area in China. The results are also consistent with many other animal and human studies. For example, there have been 19 animal studies that have shown that animals perform less well in learning and memory experiments when exposed to fluoride. It is the weight of evidence on fluoride’s neurotoxicity that should make responsible scientists and health officials much more cautious than Gluckman and Skegg.

While at this point we can do little to change the whitewash dished up by Gluckman and Skegg other than exposing their political agenda and their lack of science, we might be able to do something more about the new review by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), an agency of the Australian Federal government.
So please help prevent the NHMRC dishing up another whitewash review on fluoridation by sending in the online message below. The Australian public was duped in 2007: But once bitten twice shy. Please help Australian citizens and activists prevent this from happening again. Please personalize this online message with an opening sentence about yourself and then forward to the Australian Federal Health Minister (Rt. Hon. Peter Dutton) and the CEO of the NHMRC Professor Warwick Anderson, with copies to the Prime Minister and others.
Your own sentence here) I wish to register my concern about the NHMRC’s selection of professionals chosen for its current fluoridation review. When examining the selection, the perception of “conflict of interest” and “potential bias” is difficult to shake. Not one single expert offered to the NHMRC by citizens to help in the review process has been accepted. This is in sharp contrast to the US National Research Council that appointed a more balanced panel to review the toxicology of fluoride in water. Incredibly, the 500-page landmark review produced by this panel in 2006 was ignored by the NHMRC in 2007 and is being excluded from consideration in 2014. To make matters worse the process for submitting public input has been rushed (from July 23 to 10am August 22), overly restrictive, and unnecessarily complicated (see https://consultations.nhmrc.gov.au/user/register ).
It would appear that the current review will be a repeat of the NHMRC’s review of 2007, where the clear intent was to protect the government’s fluoridation policy rather than the health of its citizens. We urge you to ensure that the NHMRC serves Australia in the best traditions of service and science and not as a rubber-stamp for government policy.
Please personalize the online message below and ask others to do the same.
CLICK HERE TO SEND ONLINE MESSAGE

Paul Connett, PhD,
Director, Fluoride Action Network


Iodine Facts

26 Aug 2014

The Spice That Prevents Fluoride From Destroying Your Brain


Fluoride is found everywhere today, from antibiotics to drinking water, no stick pans to toothpaste, making exposure inevitable. All the more reason why new research proving this common spice can prevent fluoride damage is so promising!
http://themindunleashed.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/spiceeee.jpgFluoride’s neurotoxicity has been the subject of academic debate for decades, and now a matter of increasingly impassioned controversy among the general public, as well. From ‘conspiracy theories’ about it being first used in drinking water in Russian and Nazi concentration camps to chemically lobotomize captives, to its now well-known IQ lowering properties, to its ability to enhance the calcification of the pineal gland – the traditional ‘seat of the soul’ – many around the world, and increasingly in the heavily fluoridated regions of the United States, are starting to organize at the local and statewide level to oust this ubiquitous toxicant from municipal drinking water.
Now, a new study published in the Pharmacognosy Magazine titled, “Curcumin attenuates neurotoxicity induced by fluoride: An in vivo evidence,” adds experimental support to the suspicion that fluoride is indeed a brain-damaging substance, also revealing that a natural spice-derived protective agent against the various health effects associated with this compound is available....................

World’s Worst Weed Was Prehistoric Cavity Fighter

World’s Worst Weed Was Prehistoric Cavity FighterWho knew that chewing what today’s farmers call the “world’s worst weed” could prevent cavities? Seems our early ancestors, who lived during the pre-Mesolithic, Neolithic and Meroitic periods, had a clue. Granted, they didn’t have Coke or Pepsi to fill their mouths with refined sugars. Still, the nagging question remains, what’s in the world’s most prolific weed that saved our ancestors from rotting molars?
Brush Daily and Chew Some Cyperus Rotundus
Stephen Buckley, an archaeological chemist from the University of York in England, believes he’s found the answer. He and his team recently analyzed the hardened plaque in the fossilized teeth of our prehistoric ancestors and concluded that the chemical compounds in purple nutsedge (cyperus rotundus) may have protected them against tooth decay. The highly technical report Buckley and his colleagues published in PLOS One offers a detailed scientific explanation. But here’s the layman’s take: The research, conducted at Al Khiday, a pre-historic site on the White Nile in Central Sudan, revealed that before man developed agriculture and after agricultural plants were harvested, Al Khiday tribesmen ate purple nut sedge to inhibit Streptococcus mutans, a bacterium that contributes to tooth decay. In fact, less than one percent of people who lived in Sudan thousands of years ago had cavities, abscesses, or other signs of tooth decay, in spite of their high grain content diet, which created a hospitable environment for bacteria.
The World’s Worst Weed May be Good for You
While our ancestors enjoyed less frequent visits to their village dentist, they ate these weeds primarily for food. The purple nutsedge’s tubers store energy and carbohydrates, which early man needed to hunt wild game and fight enemies. Turns out, Cyperus Rotundus, (also known as coco grass, Java grass and nut grass) is a pretty amazing plant. It’s hearty enough to grow on every continent, thrives in poor soil, and is resistant to most chemical herbicides. The truth is, purple nutsedge has seemingly endless uses. The plant’s tuber may be bitter to the taste, but it’s packed with trace minerals, nutrients, and the essential amino acid lysine, an antiviral against the herpes. The Chinese steam the tubers, slice them lengthwise and dry them in the sun to make tea leaves that they claim helps resolve grief and resolve stomach pain from anger.
Cyperus Rotundus…the ubiquitous, unstoppable weed that may help prevent tooth decay (and maybe a few other ailments). Who knew?

24 Aug 2014

Ireland - THE GIRL AGAINST FLUORIDE

THE PEOPLE'S MOVEMENT TO END WATER FLUORIDATION
The Girl Against Fluoride
Aisling FitzGibbon aka ‘The Girl Against Fluoride’ is leading the people's movement to end water fluoridation. The Girl Against Fluoride is a public awareness campaign.Part of the campaign involves taking legal action against the Irish Government to stop them from adding fluoride to the drinking water supply. In the run up to the court case we are engaging in a nationwide public awareness campaign to inform as many people as possible about the adverse health effects of fluoride. Aisling is taking on this legal battle for the sole purpose of ensuring the right to clean, safe drinking water for the people of Ireland. There is no financial gain to be made on her part. Although Aisling is the one initiating the case, she really needs your help to make this happen.

The Girl Against Fluoride Creative Director

Mummy Martha.JPGMartha is a secondary school teacher who is also trained in Nutritional Therapy. Martha believes in the power of the imagination and how it can be used to create a positive, magical and vibrant world. Martha enjoys English and French literature and plans on writing more in the future. Martha wants health care to move towards a natural form of healing that addresses nutritional deficiencies, underlying toxicity and emotional blockages. Removing fluoride from Ireland's drinking water is crucial for healing and for maintaining health. Having witnessed her own daughter Aisling's recovery from depression, Martha realizes the power of natural healing and how fluoride free water is fundamental for mental health and overall health.
Homer - The Girl Against Fluoride Mascot
Homer.JPGHomer likes nothing better than being on the campaign trail travelling around Ireland in The Girl Against Fluoride mobile. Homer is a champion activist dog and is proud to stand up for both animal and human rights. Homer enjoys drinking fluoride free water and travels with his own filtered water when staying with relatives and friends. Homer is almost 17 years old and he attributes his longevity to drinking fluoride free water, a wholesome organic diet and the love of 'The Girl Against Fluoride' team. 


Shocking figures show our children have some of the worst teeth in England

Children in parts of Greater Manchester have among the worst teeth in England, shocking new figure show.
The rate of children in Manchester, Salford and other parts of the region having dental work including fillings and root canal surgery is among the highest in the country.
NHS data scrutinised by the MEN shows that children in Manchester were having a tooth filled every three minutes on average last year.
The news comes 12 months after the MEN revealed that almost half of five-year-olds in Salford and Oldham now have decayed, missing or filled teeth.
One senior dentist has told the MEN he is ‘heartbroken’ when he sees the state of some children’s teeth in Greater Manchester.
Dr Ben Atkins, who runs six dental surgeries in the region, said: “As a dentist, it destroys you every time you see tooth decay. It’s totally preventable.”
He has urged parents and grandparents to take more care of their children’s teeth by ensuring they brush them twice a day with fluoride toothpaste and give them milk and water instead of sugary drinks.
Figures released by Health and Social Care Information Centre show that children in Salford had the fifth highest rate of root canal treatments in 2013/14.
Manchester also had the tenth highest rate for children who have had permanent fillings and sealant repairs.
Bury had the third highest rate in the country of children who have had their teeth veneered. Children in Bury are also three times more likely and in Salford twice more likely to have had veneers compared with the national average.
The figures also show that eight out of ten children in Central Manchester and Salford have been seen by a dentist in the past two years - among the highest rates in England.
Separate figures last September showed that the proportion of five-year-olds with tooth decay is above the national average in all but one of the region’s ten districts - Stockport.
Public health chiefs say there is still much to do to reduce the inequalities in levels of dental decay.
Dr Atkins said: “Parents have total control over what their children eat and drink. It’s about educating people and getting the simple message out there to brush their children’s teeth twice a day with fluoride toothpaste.”

23 Aug 2014



Published on 22 Aug 2014
Do you brush your teeth? Drink water? Then today's show is for you. Dr. Paul Connett arrives from the Fluoride Action Network to tell all when it comes to the safety of mandatory fluoridation.

He's got some hard answers to swallow. And - Mrs. Clutterbuck down the street thinks it's a bad idea. - Oh - you'll just have to tune in to understand that one!

http://www.fluoridealert.org

http://boiltherfrogradio.com

Fluoridation review 'Dirty Science' - Fluoride Free NZ

Saturday, 23 August, 2014 - 07:17
Last week we had Dirty Politics this week we have Laundromat Science.

A "review" of fluoridation published yesterday (22nd August) was chaired by committed fluoridationists Professors Peter Gluckman and David Skegg.
Both of these men had already hung their hat on the fluoridation wagon.

It is obvious that this review was set up to allay the growing public concern and awareness that fluoride does cause harm rather than actually deal with science. This was PR not science, in other words, dirty science.
Last year Prof Gluckman issued an advisory stating that "the science was settled" and two weeks ago he said on Radio NZ that the Review would be looking at "what we know about the safety and efficacy of fluoride in water." He didn’t say they would be examining the research that shows that fluoride is harmful and perhaps not even effective.

Less than two years ago, Prof Skegg claimed that there was no new evidence to require a review of fluoridation, in spite of the two most prestigious international reviews in history (The York Review 2000 and the National Research Council 2006) saying there was a dire need for better scientific information.
The NZ "expert panel" included only people who were already known to be ardently in favour of fluoridation and not one single person who is known to be opposed, or even someone neutral. It was therefore already a foregone conclusion. Gregory Seymour who, as Head of the Otago Dental School, refused the Dental Students’ Association’s request to hear scientific evidence against fluoridation on campus by an international expert, and Murray Thomson is the Editor of the NZ Dental Journal and author of pro-fluoridation papers.

One surprise is that the review has gone so far as to claim that fluoridation works systemically (i.e. by swallowing) before teeth erupt. This belief was not only scientifically discredited 15 years ago by the US Public Health Service’s Centers for Disease Control, but has also been acknowledged as wrong in court in sworn affidavits by Health Ministry representatives and is contrary to what the top consultant to the MoH’s National fluoridation Information Service told the Hamilton City Council last year.

The Gluckman-Skegg review does not cite a single piece of research showing adverse health effects from fluoride, out of the dozens provided to the Royal Society in 2012, and the hundreds, if not thousands, in existence. The report even contradicts itself by correctly identifying that children under 15 years of age are exceeding the toxicity limits every day, and then concludes there are no health risks for any group.

This review should be viewed against the recent background of the Health Minister of Israel banning fluoridation last week and the admission by Dr Michael Beasley, the Deputy Director of the National Poisons Centre, that the jury is still out regarding fluoride’s safety, and yet another international study showing that fluoridation reduces IQ. This joins 47 other studies, ignored by the Gluckman-Skegg review, against the bogus

‘Dunedin IQ study" which does not identify individual fluoride exposure, but which is quoted in the summary as if it was one of the most important studies. The reality is that this "kangaroo review" is just a "finger in the dyke", trying to hold back the inevitable demise of this failed policy. The weight of scientific evidence is that fluoridation is not only ineffective; it poses major health risks, as known since the 1940s.

Fluoride Free New Zealand calls for an independently chaired open public discussion to uncover the truth about fluoridation.

http://fluoridefree.org.nz/dirty-politics-laundered-science/

22 Aug 2014



The dangers of fluoride and fluoridation

21 Aug 2014



PSA: "Because Fluoride"

Disclose.tv - 10 Facts About Fluoride

USA - Cavities, fluoride varnishes, and alternatives

Posted 1 hr ago
My son is 3yo and recently had his 3yr dental check up. The dentist said he has four small cavities and suggested we do 6 fluoride varnishes to stop the decay and reevaluate after that. She said they will decrease his chances of needing fills. He's never had dental issues before. I breastfed him until 26.5 months old, he eats a pretty healthy diet (I dont buy things with HFCS, he gets fruits and veggies with every meal, drinks mostly water), and I've been brushing his teeth once a day before bed with non-fluoride toothpaste. Our water is fluoridated and he drinks a lot of water so I didnt want to add to it by using fluoride toothpaste and I'm not 100% comfortable with the fluoride varnishes, but I dont want him to have bad teeth. I have upped our brushing to twice a day and have started to try and floss his teeth once a week, but what can I do for now to help his cavities not progress??
To top it off, our insurance would only allow 3 varnishes to go towards our deductible, the other 3 would be considered out of network, we still have to pay for all of them because were no where close to meeting our deductible, and I'm 37 weeks pregnant so we've got a lot of other medical bills to pay right now and in the near future. Im hoping to get some suggestions as to what I can do now to help his teeth while we sort out insurance, finances, researching the fluoride varnishes, and welcoming a new baby into the family. Ive heard brushing with baking soda and oil pulling can improve dental health, but will that help the cavities he already has? Should I add a fluoride mouthwash? He still swallows his toothpaste so im on the fence about adding fluoride toothpaste, but if it will help in the meantime I'll try to get him to spit it out. I'm just not sure what other options are out there. All the dentists say are fluoride fluoride fluoride.

Lots of fluoride but still problems.

20 Aug 2014



CDC Whistleblower

19 Aug 2014

Tooth decay growing in (fluoridated) Australian children

By 
The Dental Surgery general dentist Theodore Pang is a strong proponent of school dental programs and education to raise dental health in Tasmania. AUSTRALIANS are more likely to have a full set of chompers than New Zealanders, but rising tooth decay in our young children could change this trend.
A national report by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare on dental health found that more than 60per cent of nine-year-olds accessing dental services had decayed, missing or filled teeth.In 2010 more than half of children aged 12 and over had decay in their permanent teeth.
Australian Dental Association Tasmania president Chris Sanzano said there were no big surprises in yesterday’s report, with the trends present in this state. He said he believed kids were hospitalised every week on the North-West Coast with tooth decay.
‘‘We’ve known for a while that children’s decay rates have been increasing,’’ Dr Sanzano said.‘‘We need to be promoting healthy snacks for children including fresh fruit, and avoiding all soft drinks, fruit juices, cordial and instead drinking tap water.’’
The report also found that 38 per cent of people 15 and over had not visited a dentist in 12 months. Dr Sanzano said this was most likely higher in Tasmania, because of lower socio economic groups, and longer waiting lists in public dental health. The Dental Surgery dentist Theodore Pang said a greater focus on prevention education was needed to alleviate dental health issues in the community.
‘‘You need to look at the long-term view, and not just what needs to be done right now,’’ Dr Pang said.

18 Aug 2014

From Fluoride Action Network

Just occasionally during the long sordid history of fluoridation an individual stands up against the bullying tactics of the arrogant promoters of fluoridation. This has just happened in Israel where the Minister of Health Yael German has ended fluoridation in Israel despite the vocal and vociferous attacks of fluoridation promoters which have been gleefully - and one-sidedly - reported in The Jerusalem Post.
Doubtless these ill-informed critics will continue their bullying tactics and do everything they can to encourage dentists and doctors outside Israel to join their ignorant outcry. However, before the latter do so they should read carefully the letter below written to the Health Minister by Dr. Hardy Limeback, one of Canada's leading dental researchers and former head of Preventive Dentistry at the University of Toronto.
You can also see FAN’s open letter to Minister German sent on June 25, supporting her opposition to fluoridation and signed by many professionals from around the world.
We congratulate the Israeli Minister of Health, Yael German, for performing her job with integrity while under great pressure. She has offered the international public health community the model to follow on the fluoridation issue.
Paul Connett, PhD
Director, Fluoride Action Network

Letter from Dr. Hardy Limeback, August 15, 2014

Dear Minister German:
I have been following the debate on fluoridation in Israel for some time.
I served 3.5 years on the US National Academies of Sciences Subcommittee on Fluoride in Drinking Water.
The NAS is sometimes referred to as the ‘Supreme Court of Science’, an organization that sets up unbiased (or balanced) committees to review scientific issues of concern to Americans. The committee on which I served examined the health effects of fluoride in drinking water. Our report, published March 22, 2006, can be found online.
Our committee was funded by the US EPA – we were charged NOT to examine the benefits of fluoridation but we certainly reviewed all relevant literature on the toxicity of fluoride, including those at low levels of intake, including the toxic side effects of fluoridation.
The EPA has still not made a ruling on the maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) for fluoride, while the Department of Human Health Services, being concerned about the dental fluorosis that fluoridation is causing, has lowered its recommendation for levels of fluoride in drinking water to 0.7 mg/L (ppm). The American Dental Association and the Center for Disease Control in the US both agreed that fluoridated tap water should not be used to make up infant formula, since that increases the risk of dental fluorosis. To me, dental fluorosis is a biomarker for fluoride poisoning, not just of developing teeth but of all mineralizing tissues. Health Canada, taking the recommendation of only pro-fluoridation experts, continues to recommend fluoridation (now at a lowered level of 0.7 ppm) despite mounting evidence that the optimum therapeutic level of fluoride in drinking water, if there is even any benefit at all, is at 0.35 ppm or less.
I have personally conducted years of funded research at the University of Toronto on the topic of fluorosis (fluoride poisoning) and bone effects of fluoride intake.  A bone study, for which we received national funding, comparing hipbones of people who live in Toronto (fluoridated since 1963) to the bones of people from Montreal (Montreal has never been fluoridated), suggested disturbing negative changes in the bone quality of Torontonians. This is not something that was supposed to happen. Fluoridation was only supposed to affect teeth.
Since we studied a cross section of the population as they were selected for hip replacement, we were unable to examine only those people who were exposed to fluoridation for a lifetime. If we had been able to do this, we would have seen a much greater negative effect of fluoride since fluoride accumulates with age (our study confirmed that).
The NAS committee examined the literature on the effects of fluoride on bone up until 2006. Since that time there have been more studies to confirm the link between fluoridation and bone changes, as well as a link to bone cancer. Our Toronto vs Montreal study was not included in the 2006 review by the US National Academies of Sciences because it only just got published in 2010.
I am also the co-author of studies that show that too much fluoride accumulation in the dentin of teeth (the tissue that supports enamel) causes its properties to change as well. I suspect that a lifetime of fluoride accumulation on teeth causes them to be more brittle and fracture more easily. This effect of fluoridation has never been examined.
As a practicing dentist, I have been diagnosing and treating patients with dental fluorosis for over 30 years. My research on dental fluorosis (confirmed by the studies reported in the 2006 NRC report as well as the York review) show fluoridation significantly increases the numbers of patients seeking expensive cosmetic repairs. No one in public health has ever accounted for the added costs of treating dental fluorosis when considering the cost-benefit ratio of fluoridation.
Our 2006 NRC (NAS) report also concluded that there is a likelihood that fluoride can promote bone cancer. On page 336 it is stated Fluoride appears to have the potential to initiate or promote cancers, particularly of the bone, but the evidence to date is tentative and mixed (Tables 10-4 and 10-5). This alone should force the EPA to set a fluoride maximum contaminant level goal for fluoride in drinking water at ZERO (as it did for arsenic). The EPA has not yet made a decision as to fluoride’s carcinogenicity. In addition we now know that fluoride is neurotoxic and that children with noticeable fluorosis have lowered IQs.
I have looked at this from all angles and I have to conclude that fluoridated cities would save money on fluoridation costs, parents would save on costly dental bills treating dental fluorosis, dental decay rates would remain unchanged or even continue to decline (as has been demonstrated in many modern fluoridation cessation studies) and the health of city residents would improve when industrial waste products are no longer added/ to the drinking water (I find it absurd that the fluoride used to fluoridate drinking water is derived from industrial waste without purification, increasing carcinogenic heavy metal levels, such as arsenic and radionuclides, in the drinking water). In my opinion, purposely adding carcinogens to the drinking water at levels that are known to increase cancer rates (e.g. arsenic at parts per billion), in my opinion, is against all concepts of 'do no harm'. Lawsuits have now been launched to hold those responsible for this practice accountable.
Several Canadian cities have decided it is not worth continuing the practice of fluoridation. These can be viewed at COF-COF.ca. The number of communities that are no longer fluoridating their drinking water has reduced the total percentage of Canadians on artificially fluoridated water down  from 2/3 to about 1/3.
There is no doubt in my mind that fluoridation has next to no benefit in terms of reduced dental decay. The modern literature is clear on that. Fluoridation cessation studies fail to show an increase in dental decay. In fact, caries rates continue to drop. The York review, held up as the best evidence for ‘safe and effective’ for fluoridation is flawed because a) it could not find a single randomized, double blinded clinical trial, b) none of the clinical trials adjusted for confounding factors known to affect dental decay such as vitamin D levels, daily sugar intake, sweeteners, fissure sealants etc.. c) lumping modern studies with very old studies when decay rates were a lot higher resulted in an over-estimate of the benefit.
In the 1950’s, when fluoridation started to catch on, it was claimed that there was as much as a 40% benefit. Despite the evidence being very weak, fluoridation might have been worthwhile, especially since fluoridated toothpastes were not introduced until the late 1960’s. After the introduction of fluoridated toothpaste, the benefit of fluoridation declined. Now, if there is any benefit at all, one could expect perhaps a 5-10% benefit in children. If half the children are already cavity free and the average decay rates are only two cavities per child it means cities have to fluoridate for 20 years in order to save one decayed surface for every fifth child. More recent studies conducted in Australia show that a lifetime of fluoridation MIGHT save about one tooth from decay from childhood to middle age. Clearly, that is NOT a policy that demonstrates fiscal responsibility and cities that do not do due diligence in terms of cost-benefit analysis are wasting tax payers money and may actually be putting their councillors in a position of liability. The claim that for every $1 spent on fluoridation saves $38 was never accurate and is currently exceedingly misleading. It simply is a lie.
No government agency anywhere in the world is properly monitoring the accumulation of fluoride in people consuming fluoridated water. You cannot medicate people without knowing whether they are overdosing on the medication and whether there are any long-term negative health effects.
Fluoride added to drinking water has NOT been shown to be safe and effective. In fact, as more and more peer-reviewed studies on fluoride toxicity appear in the literature, it has become clear to me that the pendulum is certainly shifting to ‘not safe, and no longer effective’.
I would be more than happy to provide you and all the Israeli experts in the CC list a full list of peer-reviewed studies on which I have based my expert opinion expressed in this email.
You have made the right decision NOT to fluoridate in Israel. Congratulations.
Sincerely, 
Dr. Hardy Limeback BSc, PhD, DDS
Professor Emeritus and Former Head of Preventive Dentistry,
Faculty of Dentistry, University of Toronto

 

Israel - Health Minister German outlaws fluoridation of all tap water

Contrary to the advice of public health and dentistry experts in her own ministry and academia, Health Minister Yael German has decided to prohibit the fluoridation of drinking water around the country. 
Tap water She also issued her decision Sunday in contravention of a letter written exactly two years ago by Prime Minister (and then-official health minister) Binyamin Netanyahu, who told Knesset Interior Committee chairman MK Amnon Cohen that he [Netanyahu]  “could not agree to the cessation of fluoridation” of potable water. Netanyahu continued that municipalities had requested to continue their fluoridation of water and that they should be allowed to do so.

The Health Ministry introduced mandatory water fluoridation in 1970 in cities, towns and settlements with over 5,000 residents, and indeed, 70 percent of Israelis have received fluoridated water delivered to their taps. But German opposed it as Meretz-Party mayor of Herzliya and stopped it in her city. Just weeks after entering office as health minister, she declared that she would stop fluoridation and, encountering fierce criticism from critics in leading Israeli schools of public health and dentistry and from her own ministry experts, she wavered and suggested as late as June that fluoridation could be an option instead of being outlawed.

German’s spokesmen said that only Ireland and Israel require fluoridation of drinking water, but her critics responded that everywhere else is it an option open to all local authorities except where barred completely only in Holland, Sweden and the Czech Republic.

The Adin Committee (headed by Prof. Avner Adin) that looked into water quality standards had recommended that fluoridation not be mandatory but it also stated that it could instead be optional. The committee also stated that desalinated water -- which increasingly is making up for water shortages around the country -- be fluoridated.

German reiterated on Sunday that she recognized the tasteless, colorless gas as very effective in reducing dental cavities, especially among children. But she added that instead of forcing all Israelis to consume fluoridated water to benefit children’s teeth, the delivery system should be changed so each parent can decide and take action individually if they wanted their child to get dental protection. On August 26, regulations to halt all fluoridated will go into effect, and parents would have to act proactively to protect and improve their dental hygiene.

The health minister maintained that according to the World Health Organization, there is a decline in dental caries in countries that do not have mandatory fluoridation. But her critics noted that  high-income, homogeneous countries have fewer poor families and better dental habits than in Israel. Here, there are many large families including Arab, ultra-Orthodox and other children whose parents have a lower level of health education and cannot afford or are otherwise unable to protect their teeth and who require automatic delivery of fluoride in the drinking water.

Prof. Arnon Afek, German’s director-general whom she recently handpicked and who is an expert in pathology and medical administration (but not dentistry or public health), told The Jerusalem Post Sunday that he personally supported the health minister’s decision to prohibit fluoridation. “Mandatory fluoridation is medical treatment. Individuals have the right to decide if they want it or not. The question is not if fluoride is beneficial but how it should be delivered. We cannot force people. It is legitimate that experts in the field oppose the health minister’s decision, but we have a policy,” said the director-general. “The ministry supported it for over 40 years, but this is a new era. The world has changed, and we can educate parents.”

Asked about the fact that most of the developed world has been adding vitamin D to all milk products, iodine to salt and folic acid to flour for decades due to their health benefits but that Israel has not yet done so, Afek said that if the ministry decided to do so, “those who didn’t want the supplements could choose not to consume these products. But with fluoridation of tap water, there is no free choice.”

German said only one-percent of water supplies are consumed via the tap, thus fluoridation of all potable water was “a waste.” Children should instead be encouraged to brush their teeth twice a day using fluoride toothpaste, she said, and  dental clinics, health funds, kindergarten and elementary school teachers, the School Health Service and tipat halav (well-baby) clinics will aim at educating parents about fluoride.

Prof. Itamar Grotto, chief of public health at the ministry, was on Sunday abroad on vacation and unable to comment. He avoided speaking publicly on the issue in recent months in light of the minister’s position. But in a letter to then-ministry director-general Prof. Ronni Gamzu in May 2013, Grotto stated that he favored  the option of fluoridation according to local needs and that desalinated sea water for drinking must be fluoridated. As late as June, Grotto said fluoridation of drinking water would be optional for municipal and local authority heads, but this was dashed by German’s announcement on Sunday.

German did not state how much money it has allocated for educating parents, teachers and public health nurses through all these institutions. the vast majority of countries with optional fluoridation and the handful that prohibit fluoridation have significant budgets for health education purposes.

The Israel Dental Association representing the country’s dentists issued a statement on Sunday stating that it supported the continuation of fluoridation via tap water. “Fluoridation reduces and prevents dental cavities; cancellation of fluoridation [via the water supply] thus harms the dental health of Israeli residents,” the IDA stated. The association of Arab dentists within the association has issued a strong call for fluoridation as their sector tends more to suffer from poor dental health that would be even worse without fluoride in the water.

In a last-ditch effort to get German to change her mind, a group of high-level public health and dental medicine experts wrote a letter to the health minister on Sunday.

“The health ministry decided, in complete contravention to the views of public health experts -- including those in her office -- and many MKs, that her view is more important. She is the first-ever health minister not to listen to the advice of professionals and bring to her office ideology that is not based on scientific facts and irresponsible decisionmaking, to say the least.” Among the signatories were Prof. Jonathan Mann (former dean and now head of community dentistry of the Hebrew University-Hadassah School of dental medicine; senior expert in dental epidemiology at the same school), Prof. Ted Tulchinsky, a former senior Health Ministry expert in public health; and Dr. Alon Livny, Prof. Avi Zini, Dr, Yuval Vered, Dr. Ilan Diamant, Dr. Sigal Mazor, Dr. Alex Haimov and many others.
The experts noted that more than 400 million people around the world today consume and benefit from fluoridated tap water.

They maintained that German’s decision on the basis of the Adin Committee were “inaccurate and even misleading and that it never recommended halting fluoridation but to offer it according to public needs in each location and creating suitable alternatives. The committee also urged that long-term epidemiological research be carried out over 10 years with Health Ministry funding.” But the experts said that no such research was launched since the Adin Committee made the recommendation.

The public health experts added that fluoridation prevents cavities and minimizes social gaps, and that German has totally “ignored” the Adin Committee’s recommendation to fluoridate desalinated water. “The minister’s decision is amateurish and liable to cause long-term damage to Israeli children and adults, making their health situation poorer, especially on the economically and educationally disadvantaged.” Every year, they continued, 500 children are brought to hospital emergency rooms for treatment of bodily complications of rotten teeth. Her decision “is liable to increase this number many times over,” the professors declared. “Until she became minister, Israeli society enjoyed a dental and social Iron Dome” that protected their teeth, but “German canceled this.”

“This is a sad day for public health, dental health and child health in Israel,” added Tulchinsky, who is currently head of the School of Health Professions at Ashkelon College. The health minister is deliberately depriving mainly poor children especially those living in the south and north of the country from preventing 30 percent of dental caries. She is banning fluoridation despite worldwide proof of its cost effectiveness and safety.”


17 Aug 2014



Published on 16 Aug 2014
Paula and Walter talk about the dangers of fluoride, WiFi, Smart Meters, Mobile Phones